What I wanted to title this thread was actually and most appropriately...."Theory about U.S. History using Biblical Numerology"

...but that was too long to fit so I had to come up with something else and this title seemed attention getting. I'm not actually giving a prophecy...well sort of anyway.

I have been hooked on watching 'the ultimate guide to the presidents' on the history channel the past 2 weeks. I've enjoyed watching it a lot and its brought into perspective a few things about some of the lesser covered presidents and the whole flow of events in history between each one to me. like for example how James Monroe was kind of the last of his generation, the generation of the founders, the generation that fought in the Revolutionary War. after Monroe Presidents would either have been kids during the revolution and fought in the war of 1812 instead or they would have been born completely after the revolution.

But when it got me looking at it in terms of generations, it got me thinking about how the math might add up in terms of biblical numerology for that. In the bible 40 years is what is considered a generation, and it is also the number representing an ordeal. So starting from Washington I did some math and found something I felt has religious and maybe prophetic implications.

at Americas beginning the president is...

George Washington

40 years later its

Andrew Jackson

40 years later its

Abraham Lincoln

40 years later its

Theodore Rosevelt

40 years later its

Franklin D Rosevelt

40 years later its

Ronald Reagan

spaced apart at 40 year intervals, each interval representing a different generation, has been what would probably be considered the Greatest presidents in all of Americas history, as far as in a Leadership sense anyway. for each generation the shape and course of history would take can probably be attributed to these men more than any other from there generation. and they all were iconically the man that was needed for the job of fixing a paticular generational challenge in there times. In Lincols time it was to put an end to slavery something that had defined the biggest problem facing the generation marked between Jackson and himself, or FDR who had the great depression to deal with and a World War that had followed a previous World War, or Reagan who would be the man it would take to defeat the threat of the Soviet Union.

I think from a religious perspective considering these facts this would all show God's faithfulness to his people. In the book of Judges he has a Judge appointed to save his people from what was threatening them at the time. as a new threat faced them a new Judge would come. I think these presidents shows an example of God providing for the needs of each generation, and not letting the generation pass without the leader it needs to face its challenges being set up to face them at the right time, and the people must endure only a max of 40 years of lame duck presidents and leaders who are either completely inepts at handling the times and problems there generation face like Millerd Filmore or Warren Harding, or they may be true God seeking competent leaders but they are just not quite the right man for the job or are trying to fix it at the wrong time like Woodrow Wilson. He had a vision for the League of Nations, but it would be FDR who saw this dream through. after 40 years the trail a country has been going through whether that be watching their democracy get stolen away by monopolizing big businesses or having to live in constant fear of a Nuclear War with an evil empire, after the biblical number for a time of trial has been reached, every single time in American history so far a great leader would arise to handle it and put it to rest.

by this reasoning, the question any would want to ask "when will our next Abe Lincoln or George Washington like leader going to come? when will our nation get its next great president that will go down in history?" can actually get an answer with a year date. 2024. If the president that comes after Obama is a 2 term president, then the 'next great president' will come after him being 46th president of the united states. if the president that follows Obama is a one term president, then the 'next great president' will be the 47th or maybe still the 46th if he himself is a two term president. Whatever president show legacy carries through 2024 will be the one officially a generation away from Regan.

I would like to know what all your thoughts are on this theory of mine. do you think I am way out there calling some of these guys 'great generational leaders' or simply with my interpretation that God has set each of these men up special in a way different than the other men who have held the office? Also if you at all find my theory interesting or plausible, what challenge would you think would define the one our generation has been facing right now the next great leader would be chosen by God to answer? cause i myself am not sure on that last one, but my initial guesses would be the extreme hyperpartisianship of Congress, the Medias level of control on politics, or Terrorism.

Incidentally my theory that treats each generation being marked by these men makes some sense out of another supernatural mystery surrounding the history of the presidents. Supposedly a Native American put a curse on the presidents office for the president to die in office every 20 years, starting with William Harrison. This curse seemed to actually work because a president did die in office every 20 years from then on and this would continue until Ronald Reagan survived his assignation attempt. Why would God honor such a curse and if it was real why did it stop with Reagan. Because in the bible God says he carries punishment out to the 3rd and 4th generations. Regan marks the end of curse because he is that 4rth generation away from its start. That curse was Judgement for making the Indians walk the trail of tears, and Jackson ignoring his Countries highest law, the Constitution, to do this. I think because of that event is why God would Carrie out an Indian curse like that. and it was carried out to the 4rth generation the same way the God of the bible carries out such things in the bible.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

also, as far as I can tell, This theory is purely mine. I tried googling any combination of key words I thought might lead me to a web page that had already come up with this theory I could not find proof such a page exists. So I think I'm the first to make any spiritual or prophetic observations about the number 40 and the timeline of which presidents were in office when to do what.

So if I'm proven right in 2024.....its kind of more awesome

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

It may take a little longer than 11 years though to be sure I am wrong, since the great leaders that are needed in there respective times are not always recognized as such until years later looking at there presidency retroactively. Lincoln was called a tyrant in his time, it wasn't until later that people began to respect and revere him for the great man that he was.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

I would like to know what all your thoughts are on this theory of mine. do you think I am way out there calling some of these guys 'great generational leaders' or simply with my interpretation that God has set each of these men up special in a way different than the other men who have held the office? Also if you at all find my theory interesting or plausible, what challenge would you think would define the one our generation has been facing right now the next great leader would be chosen by God to answer? cause i myself am not sure on that last one, but my initial guesses would be the extreme hyperpartisianship of Congress, the Medias level of control on politics, or Terrorism.

bumping this. I had hope this thread would generate more discussion, my claims are simi-radically out there, they make assertions about history that is centuries after biblical times, in a part of history where people generally want to say 'well its too extreme to say that was Gods judgement or will"

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

At 1/21/2013 11:43:33 PM, Marauder wrote:What I wanted to title this thread was actually and most appropriately...."Theory about U.S. History using Biblical Numerology"

...but that was too long to fit so I had to come up with something else and this title seemed attention getting. I'm not actually giving a prophecy...well sort of anyway.

I have been hooked on watching 'the ultimate guide to the presidents' on the history channel the past 2 weeks. I've enjoyed watching it a lot and its brought into perspective a few things about some of the lesser covered presidents and the whole flow of events in history between each one to me. like for example how James Monroe was kind of the last of his generation, the generation of the founders, the generation that fought in the Revolutionary War. after Monroe Presidents would either have been kids during the revolution and fought in the war of 1812 instead or they would have been born completely after the revolution.

But when it got me looking at it in terms of generations, it got me thinking about how the math might add up in terms of biblical numerology for that. In the bible 40 years is what is considered a generation, and it is also the number representing an ordeal. So starting from Washington I did some math and found something I felt has religious and maybe prophetic implications.

at Americas beginning the president is...

George Washington

40 years later its

Andrew Jackson

40 years later its

Abraham Lincoln

40 years later its

Theodore Rosevelt

40 years later its

Franklin D Rosevelt

40 years later its

Ronald Reagan

spaced apart at 40 year intervals, each interval representing a different generation, has been what would probably be considered the Greatest presidents in all of Americas history, as far as in a Leadership sense anyway. for each generation the shape and course of history would take can probably be attributed to these men more than any other from there generation. and they all were iconically the man that was needed for the job of fixing a paticular generational challenge in there times. In Lincols time it was to put an end to slavery something that had defined the biggest problem facing the generation marked between Jackson and himself, or FDR who had the great depression to deal with and a World War that had followed a previous World War, or Reagan who would be the man it would take to defeat the threat of the Soviet Union.

I think from a religious perspective considering these facts this would all show God's faithfulness to his people. In the book of Judges he has a Judge appointed to save his people from what was threatening them at the time. as a new threat faced them a new Judge would come. I think these presidents shows an example of God providing for the needs of each generation, and not letting the generation pass without the leader it needs to face its challenges being set up to face them at the right time, and the people must endure only a max of 40 years of lame duck presidents and leaders who are either completely inepts at handling the times and problems there generation face like Millerd Filmore or Warren Harding, or they may be true God seeking competent leaders but they are just not quite the right man for the job or are trying to fix it at the wrong time like Woodrow Wilson. He had a vision for the League of Nations, but it would be FDR who saw this dream through. after 40 years the trail a country has been going through whether that be watching their democracy get stolen away by monopolizing big businesses or having to live in constant fear of a Nuclear War with an evil empire, after the biblical number for a time of trial has been reached, every single time in American history so far a great leader would arise to handle it and put it to rest.

by this reasoning, the question any would want to ask "when will our next Abe Lincoln or George Washington like leader going to come? when will our nation get its next great president that will go down in history?" can actually get an answer with a year date. 2024. If the president that comes after Obama is a 2 term president, then the 'next great president' will come after him being 46th president of the united states. if the president that follows Obama is a one term president, then the 'next great president' will be the 47th or maybe still the 46th if he himself is a two term president. Whatever president show legacy carries through 2024 will be the one officially a generation away from Regan.

I would like to know what all your thoughts are on this theory of mine. do you think I am way out there calling some of these guys 'great generational leaders' or simply with my interpretation that God has set each of these men up special in a way different than the other men who have held the office? Also if you at all find my theory interesting or plausible, what challenge would you think would define the one our generation has been facing right now the next great leader would be chosen by God to answer? cause i myself am not sure on that last one, but my initial guesses would be the extreme hyperpartisianship of Congress, the Medias level of control on politics, or Terrorism.

Incidentally my theory that treats each generation being marked by these men makes some sense out of another supernatural mystery surrounding the history of the presidents. Supposedly a Native American put a curse on the presidents office for the president to die in office every 20 years, starting with William Harrison. This curse seemed to actually work because a president did die in office every 20 years from then on and this would continue until Ronald Reagan survived his assignation attempt. Why would God honor such a curse and if it was real why did it stop with Reagan. Because in the bible God says he carries punishment out to the 3rd and 4th generations. Regan marks the end of curse because he is that 4rth generation away from its start. That curse was Judgement for making the Indians walk the trail of tears, and Jackson ignoring his Countries highest law, the Constitution, to do this. I think because of that event is why God would Carrie out an Indian curse like that. and it was carried out to the 4rth generation the same way the God of the bible carries out such things in the bible.

Andrew Jackson? Wasn't he the guy who stole the land from the Indians?

And how exactly was Theodore Roosevelt great?

Ronald Reagan was great? He was the guy who started this whole buildup of debt and cutting taxes on the rich. Because of that the wealth gap has steadily increased with the rich getting the majority of the economic growth.

Andrew Jackson? Wasn't he the guy who stole the land from the Indians?

And how exactly was Theodore Roosevelt great?

Ronald Reagan was great? He was the guy who started this whole buildup of debt and cutting taxes on the rich. Because of that the wealth gap has steadily increased with the rich getting the majority of the economic growth.

No President was perfect, even Lincoln was a man who left the country at risk to be in the hands of his Vice who held the opposite values as him and was informed on no part of Lincolns plan for recunstruction. He suspended basic rights garunteed by the constitution for the sake of the war effort as well.

They all have there Sins or there flaws. probably Jackson the most, but wether you like Jackson or the way he did things or not, it cant be denied that he was that generations great leader. from that point on politicians would try and campaign on "I'm like Jackson" they way they try and campaign "I'm like Regan" today. He took radical dramatic steps in just generally getting things done. He possibly changed history more than any other president in his generation.

You just have to look at the key defining problems that was most or at least uniquely affecting the generation that had to be dealt with and solved. like with Lincoln for example every president the generation before had in some way shoved the problem of slavery and the division between the North and the South off for later, making compromises that could only be temporary solutions and actually did nothing to remove the key problem of slavery.

So with Washington America was in its beginning, democracy was an experiment and without his unique leadership it would not have survived.

With Jackson I would say his generation faced the challenge of establishing U.S dominance of the New World. this included the goals of expansion out west and the 2 edged sword of kicking Europe out and I would say also to do something about the indians. I dont think that something if he were to have given his full heart to God would have been kicking the Indians out down the trail of tears. But continuing with them as just a separate people inside our countries boarders and governing sovereignty could not keep going on. I think what Jackson could have done was given that he had mountain man roots and mountain men contemporaries like Daniel Boone who respected the native americans and were friends of theres, and he even had a native american adopted son, that Jackson could have led the Indians toward being fully integrated as part of the USA rather than segregated. No other leader before were either the right man or at the right time able to do something about the segregation of the indians and Jackson did even if it wasnt in a good or the best way he should have. In any case even flat out evil men can be called great leaders, and whatever you want to call Jackson he had an ability to take charge and lead like no other from his generation.

Lincoln obviously faced the generational challenge of the Civil War, and ending Americas sin of keeping the institution of slavery

How on earth do you not know how Teddy Rosevelt was amazing?! he is like the best president ever! after a generation of lame duck presidents who created a lack of expectation of any rule coming from your elected goverment Teddy Rosevelt took charge and took power back for the people away from the Richest men alive on the planet, Carnegie, J.P Morgan, and Rockefeller. In a time when modernization was causing America to loose everything good to big businesses He did thousands of executive orders to protect our nations favorite tresures like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite Park, he busted up the monopolies and put regulations on industries to keep them from feeding america rats and getting away with it. He established America as a Global World Power and he pushed the limits of the presidencies power to build the Panema Canal. He also is just generally one of the most insperational figures in all of history, someone who as a young man the doctor told him he would never have the physical ability to accomplish anything big and that he should take a job that does not require he exert himself too much, instead TR took this as motivation to build up his body the best he could, go off to war, hunt all kinds of creatures around the planet that he would bring to the Smithsonian, and become one of the most effective presidents the country ever had.

FDR faced the generational challenge of the great depression and various international conflicts of the World Wars, he helped establish NATO and through his New Deal program and efferts to just restore hope in the people that all they had to fear was fear itself he did this.

for the generation after FDR they would be faced with constant paranoid fear of nucleur war with the Soviots, and no matter who they elected wether it was Kennedy or Eisenhower, none ever was able to put to rest this fear. when Ronald Reagan became presedent he put the nail in the coffin of the soviot union. he ended detante policey of compromising with the Soviots at every turn and he made americans proud to be americans again, no leader before him was able to do this. Reagan did everything that could be done to get the berlin wall tore down, and he succeaded at doing as much. all the men that held the office before him had to worry about the soviot union, and no man after him has had too. Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, they have all been freed up to turn there attention elseware in a way that Carter, Nixon, Ford, L.B. Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Truman did not have the luxary of.

you can say something bad about nearly all the presidents, and something good about nearly all of them, but the six I listed, Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, T Rosevelt, FDR, and Reagan were clearly unique in how they were the right guy at the right time to do a job that there generation needed done. they were leader's who had an ability to lead and get things done in areas where many of there predecessors would fail

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

At 1/22/2013 2:27:25 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:I hate F.D.R, I think he was the worst president after Woodrow Wilson. (1)

(1) Glenn Beck.

why do you call FDR and Wilson bad presidents? How can you flat out deny all the significant good they did in office? I understand having a few problems with some of what they did, but wieghed against the good they were still good presidents.

you certainly cant call either the worst presidents when you have people Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Warren Harding, Millered Filmore, Franklin Pierce, Rutherford B Hayes, Herbert Hoover, William Taft, or William Mckinnly to compare Wilson and FDR too.

they say the only good thing Warren Harding ever did in office was die, while alive he managed to kill respect for the White House, and let Corruption flourish and basically accomplished absolutely nothing else.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

That is interesting. But just because 40 is a biblical number doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the bible. That's a complete non sequitur.

Firstly, there's confirmation bias about which presidents are more important. I would say the importance of the president actually correlates with how powerful the US was at the time. So, the more recent, the more important. However, that doesn't apply if we're not taking the whole world into perspective and, rather, only looking within the US.

Secondly, the odds aren't that bad to rule out chance.

Thirdly, it can be explained by natural generational cycles. Which would make it most interesting, I think.

They all have there Sins or there flaws. probably Jackson the most, but wether you like Jackson or the way he did things or not, it cant be denied that he was that generations great leader. from that point on politicians would try and campaign on "I'm like Jackson" they way they try and campaign "I'm like Regan" today. He took radical dramatic steps in just generally getting things done. He possibly changed history more than any other president in his generation.

With Jackson I would say his generation faced the challenge of establishing U.S dominance of the New World. this included the goals of expansion out west and the 2 edged sword of kicking Europe out and I would say also to do something about the indians. I dont think that something if he were to have given his full heart to God would have been kicking the Indians out down the trail of tears. But continuing with them as just a separate people inside our countries boarders and governing sovereignty could not keep going on. I think what Jackson could have done was given that he had mountain man roots and mountain men contemporaries like Daniel Boone who respected the native americans and were friends of theres, and he even had a native american adopted son, that Jackson could have led the Indians toward being fully integrated as part of the USA rather than segregated. No other leader before were either the right man or at the right time able to do something about the segregation of the indians and Jackson did even if it wasnt in a good or the best way he should have. In any case even flat out evil men can be called great leaders, and whatever you want to call Jackson he had an ability to take charge and lead like no other from his generation.

Lincoln obviously faced the generational challenge of the Civil War, and ending Americas sin of keeping the institution of slavery

How on earth do you not know how Teddy Rosevelt was amazing?! he is like the best president ever! after a generation of lame duck presidents who created a lack of expectation of any rule coming from your elected goverment Teddy Rosevelt took charge and took power back for the people away from the Richest men alive on the planet, Carnegie, J.P Morgan, and Rockefeller. In a time when modernization was causing America to loose everything good to big businesses He did thousands of executive orders to protect our nations favorite tresures like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite Park, he busted up the monopolies and put regulations on industries to keep them from feeding america rats and getting away with it. He established America as a Global World Power and he pushed the limits of the presidencies power to build the Panema Canal. He also is just generally one of the most insperational figures in all of history, someone who as a young man the doctor told him he would never have the physical ability to accomplish anything big and that he should take a job that does not require he exert himself too much, instead TR took this as motivation to build up his body the best he could, go off to war, hunt all kinds of creatures around the planet that he would bring to the Smithsonian, and become one of the most effective presidents the country ever had.

FDR faced the generational challenge of the great depression and various international conflicts of the World Wars, he helped establish NATO and through his New Deal program and efferts to just restore hope in the people that all they had to fear was fear itself he did this.

for the generation after FDR they would be faced with constant paranoid fear of nucleur war with the Soviots, and no matter who they elected wether it was Kennedy or Eisenhower, none ever was able to put to rest this fear. when Ronald Reagan became presedent he put the nail in the coffin of the soviot union. he ended detante policey of compromising with the Soviots at every turn and he made americans proud to be americans again, no leader before him was able to do this. Reagan did everything that could be done to get the berlin wall tore down, and he succeaded at doing as much. all the men that held the office before him had to worry about the soviot union, and no man after him has had too. Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, they have all been freed up to turn there attention elseware in a way that Carter, Nixon, Ford, L.B. Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Truman did not have the luxary of.

you can say something bad about nearly all the presidents, and something good about nearly all of them, but the six I listed, Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, T Rosevelt, FDR, and Reagan were clearly unique in how they were the right guy at the right time to do a job that there generation needed done. they were leader's who had an ability to lead and get things done in areas where many of there predecessors would fail

Andrew Jackson may have been a popular person and may have established America's dominance, but many of the things he did to do this were outright evil. Driving hundreds of thousands of Indians from their homes in the name of American might is absolutely evil. If such a figure was doing such a thing in a nation like China or India, he would be become a criminal for crimes against humanity.

Teddy Roosevelt did make many regulations against big corporations so he seems like a great person.

I am not sure Ronald Reagan was the one who took down the Soviet Union. I don't see any evidence for that and you did not include it in your post.

Before Ronald Reagan, the national debt as a percent of the GDP has fallen to 30% from 70% since the 1950 thanks to good budget policy. See the link below for info on that.http://www.progressinaction.com...

However, thanks to Reagan cutting revenue without cutting spending this ended and it went up to 50% of the GDP. The framework of his tax policy made the national debt rise even further.

So while Reagan was tough on the Soviets, he was a complete disaster for our economy.

Bill Clinton on the other hand actually balanced our budget and ended the period of huge deficits. He deserves to be on that list way more than Reagan.

LBJ deserves to be on that list. While he failed in Vietnam, he had good intentions and was trying to keep a free South Vietnam, and reduce Soviet Influence. He was the one who passed the Civil Rights act, and began Welfare.

James Madison deserves to be on that list because he beat the British and asserted for the first time, America's military Strength. Thomas Jefferson was a great President. He not only beat up the Barbary Pirates who were threatening the ships of out fragile nation but was in charge of the Louisiana Purchase, the largest expansion of US territory.

I pray for your observation to be true and that this nation is delivered from the tyranny and nonsense that Washington DC is currently thrusting upon the people of this nation. I don't hold much hope though. All the other things that were overcome were of a non selfish nature. This generation is too entitlement minded. Once someone is taught that they are entitled to something without having to work for it or just because they were born, it is hopeless to change that thinking. It is embedded for ever. More than half the nation thinks this way, so I don't see anything that could change anything. It will just be status quo to the end. Wheres my govt hand out and if I don't get I'll riot in the streets until I do. You can already see the effects of the entitlement mind in welfare states that are collapsing in Europe. They have no intention what so ever of giving up their govt checks for the survival of their respective nations.

At 1/22/2013 4:50:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:That is interesting. But just because 40 is a biblical number doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the bible. That's a complete non sequitur.

I didnt say this proves the bible or anything. just that if you are already looking at things from a religious perspective, because that's what 40 means in the bible it would have some spiritual significance for this similar pattern here.

Firstly, there's confirmation bias about which presidents are more important. I would say the importance of the president actually correlates with how powerful the US was at the time. So, the more recent, the more important. However, that doesn't apply if we're not taking the whole world into perspective and, rather, only looking within the US.

for purposes of just looking at the nation and the challenges of the nation, I would say we shouldnt take into account other countries. plus to rebut your personal view on this just about everyone would agree Lincoln was great regardless of the political view, and he was president before america was a global power at all. and the nation was the definition of weak; divided against itself and at war. Harding was president after Rosevelt and Wilson established america as a world power and he was clearly a worse president that Lincoln or even Grant.

Secondly, the odds aren't that bad to rule out chance.

a chance phenomena that ends up reacurring on the dot every 40 years for the past 200 some years?

Thirdly, it can be explained by natural generational cycles. Which would make it most interesting, I think.

this I could accapt as an alternative perspective. but it would still end up with me being right that we will get a history shaping generational great leader in 2024, if its truely just natural that once a full generation passes we elect a strong leader who changes history a little more than men not elected leaders at other times that are not the end of the cycle. Its really hard for me to fathom though the idea of a kind of leadership arising to power being something provided by a generational cycle. I'm sure some things from natural generational cycles help, like in the case of woodrow wilson and FDR. Wilson had the right idea with the leage of nations but his generation was not ready for the change yet, they had been put through too much change all ready. Zachery Taylor had the backbone to deal with the slavery issue, but his generation had not gone through its cycle enough of suffering from the division it caused yet for him to be able to do something about it. Lincoln knew the time was right then the kill slavery during his presidency.

Natural Generational cycles can explain why when the right man for the job cant get it done when its the wrong time in the cycle, but it does not explain why each time in the cycle when it is the right time, every 40 years, the right man is always there and never a warren harding. shouldnt it be more natural for us to get Hardings most of the time? he was a man who lived to try and please everybody and usually succeeded historians like to say. But a Harding like presedent has never been president at the 40 year ends of the cycles.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

At 1/22/2013 6:17:40 PM, sadolite wrote:I pray for your observation to be true and that this nation is delivered from the tyranny and nonsense that Washington DC is currently thrusting upon the people of this nation. I don't hold much hope though. All the other things that were overcome were of a non selfish nature. This generation is too entitlement minded. Once someone is taught that they are entitled to something without having to work for it or just because they were born, it is hopeless to change that thinking. It is embedded for ever. More than half the nation thinks this way, so I don't see anything that could change anything. It will just be status quo to the end. Wheres my govt hand out and if I don't get I'll riot in the streets until I do. You can already see the effects of the entitlement mind in welfare states that are collapsing in Europe. They have no intention what so ever of giving up their govt checks for the survival of their respective nations.

I think you have more reason for hope than you think. if you agree a welfare entitlement socioty is bad then there is no way you should think it will stay with us forever. anything bad even if a generation embraces it at the start of the generation once it has to suffer through it, live in its bad effect for awhile, they will brace the need to change to something better.

thats the cycle that when you look at each of the presidents I listed and then all the ones inbetween, the nation would be ready for more drastic change when the Teddy Rosevelt kind would come in, and after they leave the nation would be tired of all the change and want to get back to normal and get used to the changes that took place. the next generation that lived with those T.R. changes saw those as normal now, and they endured they own generations problems without the last ones problems long enough to be ready for new change coming from F.D.R.

Wilson wanted more change but he was in the middle of the cycle so the people wanted Harding to make things normal again. the change Wilson wanted would have to wait till the cycle came round to FDR.

If a generation lives on welfare long enough eventually it will be ready for the leader who tells them "I know your sick of the crumbs and want a piece of that pie! and I have a way to bring you back to the dignity of providing for yourself again"

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

Andrew Jackson may have been a popular person and may have established America's dominance, but many of the things he did to do this were outright evil. Driving hundreds of thousands of Indians from their homes in the name of American might is absolutely evil. If such a figure was doing such a thing in a nation like China or India, he would be become a criminal for crimes against humanity.

Jackson personally had to fight against those same 'victoms' years before the war of 1812. the indian wars occured because america kept trying to live with the indians among themselves as a segragated socioty. these kind of wars cant be allowed to go on forever without doing something about it. theres only two solutions either make the indians become fully integrated into the US as US citizens, or make them relocate somewhere else. from fighting them for so long he knew they would rather die than become US citizens, so that left relocation.

Teddy Roosevelt did make many regulations against big corporations so he seems like a great person.

if your going to fairly look at the level of leadership of a leader in history you need to try and do it with non-partisian eyes. I dont write off F.D.R. for trying to steal power in the Supreme Court, run for a third term on the lie that he intended to keep us out of WW2, and for all purposes bring America much closer to Communism with his New Deal reforms. the New Deal may be socialist in nature but its crazy to call it Communism and it still played a small role in the recovery of america.

you need to not look at if they did policies you like or made reforms you favor when judgeing if they were a great leader. you need to look at there leadership, how they lead the nation, how they had the backbone and skill to work with Congress or get congress to do what they wanted it to do. all these men were excellent at this, they were not passive and prone to just go with the flow and let Congress just do whatever it wanted to do

I am not sure Ronald Reagan was the one who took down the Soviet Union. I don't see any evidence for that and you did not include it in your post.

LBJ deserves to be on that list. While he failed in Vietnam, he had good intentions and was trying to keep a free South Vietnam, and reduce Soviet Influence. He was the one who passed the Civil Rights act, and began Welfare.

James Madison deserves to be on that list because he beat the British and asserted for the first time, America's military Strength. Thomas Jefferson was a great President. He not only beat up the Barbary Pirates who were threatening the ships of out fragile nation but was in charge of the Louisiana Purchase, the largest expansion of US territory.

my list isnt of every good president there ever was, I dont claim all the presidents between the ones I listed were lame ducks, Jefferson was an amazing president, Calvin Coolidge was a great president, Woodro Wilson was a great president, Eisenhower I think was a great president. Some good things can be said for Madison and Monroe and Polk. you can say something good about near all the presidents with the exception of mabye Harding and Nixon, and even Nixon I think if you put his paranoid scummy bad choices aside there can be some good to say for him.

but the six I listed are Great Leaders in a different way, they define the generation, they end up doing what it takes to solve the problems that was facing the generation. Jefferson was a good leader, but Washington set the bar for his generation and while he bought the lousiana purchase it was Jackson who got the indians out of it. Madison was president during the war of 1812 but it was Jackson who was the commander that got credit of winning that war for america. Tyler and Polk get there names on aquireing much of the west but the the trend of purposefully expanding west, manifest destiney, was started by Jackson and its why he was elected. Kennedy and Eisenhower would make good solid efforts against the soviot union, striking deals to remove missles from turkey during the cuban missle crises averting war or creating the interstate roads and increasing funding to education to make the nation better equipped for war if it came to that and also causing the economy to flourish from having such a road system, but Detent policy with the Soviots would continue with every president regardless of there party, Until Regan came. Regan would stop compromising with the soviots giving them a little more all the time. He would out spend them in our arms race, he would fight them through trade policy and after a generation of relying on mutually assured destruction and not feeling safe because of it he started the Star Wars program, something the soviots were willing to give away near everything they had to make Reagan give up, before it was even produced a single Patriot missile.

These presidents are the ones that shaped the generation, who's leadership would stand out the most in there generation. even if your a democrat you would probably have to admit you end up debating against republicans who apeal to 'Reaganism' and not 'Bushism' or 'Nixonism' or 'Eisenhowerism' or 'Fordism'. When your a republican that might not like FDR, you have to admit FDR is perhaps more the last great leader of libral democrate values democrates appeal to more than say Kennedy or Johnson or Clinton or espically Carter. When Obama ran for office against Mcain he said on television that he was of the party of Franklin Roosevelt, he did not appeal to Kennedy to say he was like him. The Shadows that Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, T.R., F.D.R., and Reagan would be taller than any shadow cast by the other leaders from there generation.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

At 1/22/2013 6:17:40 PM, sadolite wrote:I pray for your observation to be true and that this nation is delivered from the tyranny and nonsense that Washington DC is currently thrusting upon the people of this nation. I don't hold much hope though. All the other things that were overcome were of a non selfish nature. This generation is too entitlement minded. Once someone is taught that they are entitled to something without having to work for it or just because they were born, it is hopeless to change that thinking. It is embedded for ever. More than half the nation thinks this way, so I don't see anything that could change anything. It will just be status quo to the end. Wheres my govt hand out and if I don't get I'll riot in the streets until I do. You can already see the effects of the entitlement mind in welfare states that are collapsing in Europe. They have no intention what so ever of giving up their govt checks for the survival of their respective nations.

I think you have more reason for hope than you think. if you agree a welfare entitlement socioty is bad then there is no way you should think it will stay with us forever. anything bad even if a generation embraces it at the start of the generation once it has to suffer through it, live in its bad effect for awhile, they will brace the need to change to something better.

thats the cycle that when you look at each of the presidents I listed and then all the ones inbetween, the nation would be ready for more drastic change when the Teddy Rosevelt kind would come in, and after they leave the nation would be tired of all the change and want to get back to normal and get used to the changes that took place. the next generation that lived with those T.R. changes saw those as normal now, and they endured they own generations problems without the last ones problems long enough to be ready for new change coming from F.D.R.

Wilson wanted more change but he was in the middle of the cycle so the people wanted Harding to make things normal again. the change Wilson wanted would have to wait till the cycle came round to FDR.

If a generation lives on welfare long enough eventually it will be ready for the leader who tells them "I know your sick of the crumbs and want a piece of that pie! and I have a way to bring you back to the dignity of providing for yourself again"

One can only hope what you say will happen. I'm not holding my breath. I don't think this generation has what it takes. They are happy sitting around with their cell phones and never leaving the house. Givem a free cell phone and a ipod and that's the end of that. You have a life long voter for the welfare state. Chicken feed to keep the masses in line. Tell me what young adult would not vote for anyone who gave them a free cell phone.

Now I'm not normally up for appeals to authority, but if I had to make one, I would chose wikipedia over you :P

I dont think you looked close enough at that wiki. it gave lots of differnt polls and rankings, and in a lot of them Regan was ranked fairly high, some of them he was even ranked second to Lincoln.

most the people on my list are in that top 5 though. and the 2 that are not are not a far throw from it or are even in it in a few of the polls on that page. suprisingly both librals and conservatives in a poll that seperated the 2 ranked Jackson very high at 6th best and 7th best.

FDR is ranked high on about any opinion poll there is out there and yet you still see people on this very thread wanting to say he was the worst president ever for partisian reasons. its going to take more time to pass for people to be looking back in retrospect enough for more of them to see Regan for just how great he was. We are still living in the generation that lives at either appealing to his name or against his name, even though he is dead he affects politics today more than most of the living, we are living in the generation thats under his shadow and the generation that is yet to be saved by the next Giant that will cast the next one.

the main thing that is different for my picks from the wiki though is while there really close to being in agreement, the wiki is just based on many peoples personal opinion, mine is chosen because of there distance apart in time. because of this is can choose in a non-partisian opinion based way the first democrate and the first republican, it can choose a leader like F.D.R. and a leader like Ronald Reagan at the same time.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

Tell me what young adult would not vote for anyone who gave them a free cell phone.

ME you agiest jerk. I would not vote for anyone who gives me a free phone. I am a young adult among many others who I personally campaigned with going door to door around the Virginia Tech Colledge Campus trying to get Romney in office. My and hundreds of thousands of young adults all across the nation are the sort who will vote against the man that allowed us to stay on our parents insurance until we turn 26 and vote for the man who says he will repeal the affordeble healthcare act that gave us that said luxary.

I am a young adult who worked my tail off during the campaign, tell me just what did you do granpa?! complain about Obama and democrates when you go to work with your coworkers and then did the least you could do in showing up to cast a vote? Its agiest Geezers like you who are the problem with this country, and when a generation passes and old people like you are finally out of congress because you all died or retired, then the real good change will start to occure

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

At 1/21/2013 11:43:33 PM, Marauder wrote:What I wanted to title this thread was actually and most appropriately...."Theory about U.S. History using Biblical Numerology"

...but that was too long to fit so I had to come up with something else and this title seemed attention getting. I'm not actually giving a prophecy...well sort of anyway.

I have been hooked on watching 'the ultimate guide to the presidents' on the history channel the past 2 weeks. I've enjoyed watching it a lot and its brought into perspective a few things about some of the lesser covered presidents and the whole flow of events in history between each one to me. like for example how James Monroe was kind of the last of his generation, the generation of the founders, the generation that fought in the Revolutionary War. after Monroe Presidents would either have been kids during the revolution and fought in the war of 1812 instead or they would have been born completely after the revolution.

But when it got me looking at it in terms of generations, it got me thinking about how the math might add up in terms of biblical numerology for that. In the bible 40 years is what is considered a generation, and it is also the number representing an ordeal. So starting from Washington I did some math and found something I felt has religious and maybe prophetic implications.

at Americas beginning the president is...

George Washington

Good.

40 years later its

Andrew Jackson

As much bad as good.

40 years later its

Abraham Lincoln

Exceptionally good.

40 years later its

Theodore Rosevelt

Not monumentally awful, neither especially good.

40 years later its

Franklin D Rosevelt

Quite bad in most regards other than WWII.

40 years later its

Ronald Reagan

A whole lot of good, but he wasn't perfect.

--

I think you should do some looking into David Icke or Alex Jones. These people might interest you.

its so weird how people respond to these differently. you can have the insight to see Jackson as doing good at all amoung the bad, but cant see anything worth note in Teddy Rosevelt? Teddy Roosevelt is the third easiest of all of them to see as one of the Greatest Presidents there ever was. He wasnt even president during a War and people still love the memory and talking about the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt today

--

I think you should do some looking into David Icke or Alex Jones. These people might interest you.

why?

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

Andrew Jackson may have been a popular person and may have established America's dominance, but many of the things he did to do this were outright evil. Driving hundreds of thousands of Indians from their homes in the name of American might is absolutely evil. If such a figure was doing such a thing in a nation like China or India, he would be become a criminal for crimes against humanity.

Jackson personally had to fight against those same 'victoms' years before the war of 1812. the indian wars occured because america kept trying to live with the indians among themselves as a segragated socioty. these kind of wars cant be allowed to go on forever without doing something about it. theres only two solutions either make the indians become fully integrated into the US as US citizens, or make them relocate somewhere else. from fighting them for so long he knew they would rather die than become US citizens, so that left relocation.

Teddy Roosevelt did make many regulations against big corporations so he seems like a great person.

if your going to fairly look at the level of leadership of a leader in history you need to try and do it with non-partisian eyes. I dont write off F.D.R. for trying to steal power in the Supreme Court, run for a third term on the lie that he intended to keep us out of WW2, and for all purposes bring America much closer to Communism with his New Deal reforms. the New Deal may be socialist in nature but its crazy to call it Communism and it still played a small role in the recovery of america.

you need to not look at if they did policies you like or made reforms you favor when judgeing if they were a great leader. you need to look at there leadership, how they lead the nation, how they had the backbone and skill to work with Congress or get congress to do what they wanted it to do. all these men were excellent at this, they were not passive and prone to just go with the flow and let Congress just do whatever it wanted to do

I am not sure Ronald Reagan was the one who took down the Soviet Union. I don't see any evidence for that and you did not include it in your post.

LBJ deserves to be on that list. While he failed in Vietnam, he had good intentions and was trying to keep a free South Vietnam, and reduce Soviet Influence. He was the one who passed the Civil Rights act, and began Welfare.

James Madison deserves to be on that list because he beat the British and asserted for the first time, America's military Strength. Thomas Jefferson was a great President. He not only beat up the Barbary Pirates who were threatening the ships of out fragile nation but was in charge of the Louisiana Purchase, the largest expansion of US territory.

my list isnt of every good president there ever was, I dont claim all the presidents between the ones I listed were lame ducks, Jefferson was an amazing president, Calvin Coolidge was a great president, Woodro Wilson was a great president, Eisenhower I think was a great president. Some good things can be said for Madison and Monroe and Polk. you can say something good about near all the presidents with the exception of mabye Harding and Nixon, and even Nixon I think if you put his paranoid scummy bad choices aside there can be some good to say for him.

but the six I listed are Great Leaders in a different way, they define the generation, they end up doing what it takes to solve the problems that was facing the generation. Jefferson was a good leader, but Washington set the bar for his generation and while he bought the lousiana purchase it was Jackson who got the indians out of it. Madison was president during the war of 1812 but it was Jackson who was the commander that got credit of winning that war for america. Tyler and Polk get there names on aquireing much of the west but the the trend of purposefully expanding west, manifest destiney, was started by Jackson and its why he was elected. Kennedy and Eisenhower would make good solid efforts against the soviot union, striking deals to remove missles from turkey during the cuban missle crises averting war or creating the interstate roads and increasing funding to education to make the nation better equipped for war if it came to that and also causing the economy to flourish from having such a road system, but Detent policy with the Soviots would continue with every president regardless of there party, Until Regan came. Regan would stop compromising with the soviots giving them a little more all the time. He would out spend them in our arms race, he would fight them through trade policy and after a generation of relying on mutually assured destruction and not feeling safe because of it he started the Star Wars program, something the soviots were willing to give away near everything they had to make Reagan give up, before it was even produced a single Patriot missile.

These presidents are the ones that shaped the generation, who's leadership would stand out the most in there generation. even if your a democrat you would probably have to admit you end up debating against republicans who apeal to 'Reaganism' and not 'Bushism' or 'Nixonism' or 'Eisenhowerism' or 'Fordism'. When your a republican that might not like FDR, you have to admit FDR is perhaps more the last great leader of libral democrate values democrates appeal to more than say Kennedy or Johnson or Clinton or espically Carter. When Obama ran for office against Mcain he said on television that he was of the party of Franklin Roosevelt, he did not appeal to Kennedy to say he was like him. The Shadows that Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, T.R., F.D.R., and Reagan would be taller than any shadow cast by the other leaders from there generation.

At 1/22/2013 2:27:25 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:I hate F.D.R, I think he was the worst president after Woodrow Wilson. (1)

(1) Glenn Beck.

why do you call FDR and Wilson bad presidents? How can you flat out deny all the significant good they did in office? I understand having a few problems with some of what they did, but wieghed against the good they were still good presidents.

you certainly cant call either the worst presidents when you have people Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Warren Harding, Millered Filmore, Franklin Pierce, Rutherford B Hayes, Herbert Hoover, William Taft, or William Mckinnly to compare Wilson and FDR too.

they say the only good thing Warren Harding ever did in office was die, while alive he managed to kill respect for the White House, and let Corruption flourish and basically accomplished absolutely nothing else.

I think Woodrow Wilson helped start the Federal Reserve, one of the deadliest assaults on the Constitution. F.D.R.'s New Deal was too, and he started the abuse of the Commerce Clause.

When I judge presidents, I judge how well they abode by their presidential oaths. Even though (probably) every president broke the Constitution in some way or another, these two people were the worst.

At 1/22/2013 9:07:33 PM, Marauder wrote:Natural Generational cycles can explain why when the right man for the job cant get it done when its the wrong time in the cycle, but it does not explain why each time in the cycle when it is the right time, every 40 years, the right man is always there and never a warren harding. shouldnt it be more natural for us to get Hardings most of the time? he was a man who lived to try and please everybody and usually succeeded historians like to say. But a Harding like presedent has never been president at the 40 year ends of the cycles.

Well, what it actually looks like is that, every 40 years, a person with a big personality is chosen. And big personalities do tend to equal eccentric action.

I didnt get the 40 from looking at any of those. strictly speaking its kind of an approxamate 40 more than a straite one.

1789 washington takes office.

40 yrs ltr

1829 John Quiency Adams/Andrew Jackson

I add 40 from 1825 since thats when Jackson was elected though Henry Clay skewed the election that year.

1865 would be Abraham Lincoln/ Andrew Johnson

plus 40

1905 Teddy Rosevelt is president

plus 40

1945 FDR/Trumanplus 40

1985 Reagan is president through that yearplus 40

2025 will be the president who will either be elected or reelected 2024

I forgot exactly why I had even started looking to see if I'd find anything significant 40 years apart. I think it started with me wondering how long America had dud presidents between Lincoln and T.R., and when I saw it was 40 and recognized it as a biblical number for a generation and a trail, I wanted to know who I'd see for the rest of the 40 years apart.

I know J.Q.A was not that big of deal but Jackson was. the two are so tied though in history around the same time and events I figured Jackson counts as approximately being the president at that time anyway.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.